I have no worries about a qualified white applicant losing admittance over affirmative action. However, IMO leveling college admissions is far too late in the game to appreciably fix things. US public schools are locally financed and run. That's all well and good when you are from a wealthy area, however, when your neighborhood is poor, your primary school is not of quality. It's a systemic and accepted second-classicism that damns poor black kids to a place from where we debate if affirmative action really is a solution. I see affirmative action as a band-aid on a grievous wound. It's almost insulting to all involved, and hangs over the head of those that have become competitive for college admission despite racism and poverty. The haves in the US constantly debate support vs responsibility, but its going to take a incredible amount of both to turn things around anytime soon. Affirmative action can't solve the problem, and not because it might be the wrong thing to do. I drive through Detroit and I am ashamed. I'm sure the people that live in it are ashamed too. It's fucking awful, and it's not what should be happening in a 'first world' country. Also, legacy admissions are vile, and it's inexcusable that universities can trade for alumni money in that way.
"I see affirmative action as a band-aid on a grievous wound. It's almost insulting to all involved, and hangs over the head of those that have become competitive for college admission despite racism and poverty." (seriously how DO you do the little gray text things indicating a quote? Is that on the help page or something? Anyway...)
I 100% agree. There are so many issues with affirmative action; its obvious we need a better system but how do we attain this? "Also, legacy admissions are vile" You know, I actually don't really mind legacy admissions that much, even though I myself am not one. The dirty little secret is that institutions are also businesses, they exist to make money on some level. Legacies are more likely to donate. Donations mean more resources for the school like better technology or renovated dorms. Sure, everyone wonders why George W Bush, bless him, got into an Ivy League institution, but if that meant say, better food in the cafeteria, I'll take it. It's no different then preferential admission to children of say, celebrities. All of them, in my view are necessary evils. On a completely random side note, did you know that I recently found out that my school holds a separate pre-orientation for the families of super wealthy students, in an effort to woo them to donate? If that is not the most elitist, twisted thing I have ever heard, I don't know what is. I mean sure, donations are necessary things, but come on.
Wealthy kids have plenty going for them. I don't fear that universities would be underfunded if alumni couldn't get admissions for their money. IMHO it's socially acceptable corruption, -paying for something undeserved.You know, I actually don't really mind legacy admissions that much, even though I myself am not one. The dirty little secret is that institutions are also businesses, they exist to make money on some level. Legacies are more likely to donate.
While no one desires to send their kids to an inner city, under-performing school, the numbers actually tell a story that doesn't support your premise. Children of engaged parents tend to do well in life no matter what school they attended. Parents turn out to be so much more important to a child's development, both academically and socially, than a school ever could be. But unfortunately, in our society, you're a racist if you go by the numbers in this case. Off topic, but diversity is a bullshit argument vis-a-vis affirmative action. We shouldn't be afraid to call affirmative action what it is: indirect reparations, and there's nothing wrong with that. Its attempting to right an egregious wrong. But we also shouldn't be afraid to scrap it in the face of all the empirical evidence that says its failed. Diversity was never the original goal of affirmative action, and it shouldn't be the de facto goal now that its the only one that the Court allows. It should be replaced by a new, more creative system that doesn't carry the same baggage of the last decades. I don't have a clue what that would look like, but ideas are needed in this regard; the status quo isn't good enough....however, when your neighborhood is poor, your primary school is not of quality. It's a systemic and accepted second-classicism that damns poor black kids to a place from where we debate if affirmative action really is a solution.
"Parents turn out to be so much more important to a child's development, both academically and socially, than a school ever could be. But unfortunately, in our society, you're a racist if you go by the numbers in this case." Please see my response above, the sentence I said I wanted to underline in regards to this. "It should be replaced by a new, more creative system that doesn't carry the same baggage of the last decades." Yeah I totally agree.